Appeal dismissed; confiscation under s.3(d) FEMA cannot be sustained as seizure interrupted, withheld Rs.89,70,000 adjusted and refunded

AT dismissed the Department's appeal and upheld the Special Director's finding that confiscation under s.3(d) FEMA could not be sustained because the alleged transfer was interrupted by enforcement action, so the seized amount (Rs. 89,70,000) was not transmitted. The tribunal found no error in refusing confiscation, declined to disturb penalties of Rs.25,00,000 each, and directed the respondent to adjust the withheld Rs.89,70,000 toward those amounts and refund the balance to the appellants, noting the amount had been improperly withheld for about 20 years.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether the seized amount of Rs. 89,70,000 constitutes a "financial transaction in India as consideration for or in association with acquisition or creation or transfer of a right to acquire any asset outside India" within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, thereby justifying confiscation.

2. Whether an attempt or preparation to effect a transfer, where the transfer was prevented by enforcement intervention before any payment or credit/change of possession occurred, falls within the ambit of Section 3(d) (i.e., whether attempt liability under the earlier FERA regime survives under FEMA).

3. Whether the penalties of Rs. 25,00,000 imposed on each noticee under Section 13(2) for alleged contravention of Section 3(d) merit interference by the Tribunal, in light of the finding on confiscation and the appellants' concession regarding adjustment of penalty against the seized amount.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Whether the seized sum constituted a Section 3(d) financial transaction justifying confiscation

Legal framework: Section 3(d) prohibits entering into any "financial transaction in India as consideration for or in association with acquisition or creation or transfer of a right to acquire any asset outside India by any person." "Financial transaction" is defined to include making any payment to or for the credit of any person, receiving any payment for by order/on behalf of any person, drawing/issuing/negotiating bills/promissory notes, transferring a security, or acknowledging a debt.

Precedent treatment: No judicial precedents were relied upon in the impugned order; however, the distinction between attempt-based liability under the former FERA regime and the substantive scope under FEMA was expressly noted and treated as significant.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal accepted the Special Director's factual finding that although two persons had come to collect the currency on instructions from abroad, no transfer or handing over of the seized amount actually occurred because enforcement officers intervened during the search. The statutory prohibition in Section 3(d) was interpreted to require a financial transaction as defined (i.e., an act of payment, crediting, receiving payment, transfer, negotiation, etc.). Mere preparation or attempt, without completion of any such act, does not satisfy the statutory element of "enter into any financial transaction." The Tribunal endorsed the view that an aborted attempt-where nothing of the nature of a payment/credit/transfer actually took place-does not supply the requisite factual foundation for confiscation under Section 3(d).

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The Court's authoritative determination is that, for confiscation under Section 3(d), there must be an actual financial transaction as defined in the statute; an unconsummated attempt, interrupted by enforcement action, does not constitute a Section 3(d) contravention justifying confiscation. Obiter - Observations distinguishing FERA's treatment of attempts from FEMA's lack of attempt liability are explanatory but reinforce the core ratio.

Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the Special Director's refusal to confiscate the seized sum of Rs. 89,70,000, finding no completed financial transaction within the meaning of Section 3(d) and therefore no statutory basis for confiscation.

Issue 2 - Whether attempt or preparation to transfer is punishable under Section 3(d) (FERA v. FEMA distinction)

Legal framework: Under FERA, attempt to contravene certain provisions was actionable; FEMA's statutory text was contrasted to show absence of equivalent attempt liability in Section 3(d).

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal treated the historical distinction as directly relevant to construing liability under FEMA and relied on the absence of an explicit attempt provision in FEMA to deny attempt-based guilt.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal read Section 3(d) strictly to require an actual financial transaction and rejected the contention that preparatory acts or readiness to effect a transfer (e.g., persons present to collect cash, possession of bags) equate to the statutory act of "enter[ing] into any financial transaction." The Court found the factual admission that enforcement intervention precluded any transfer dispositive: absent the consummating act, the statutory prohibition was not engaged.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Attempt or preparation, standing alone and absent a completed financial transaction as defined in Section 3(d), does not attract confiscation or the substantive contravention under FEMA. Obiter - Historical comparison to FERA was explanatory and used to distinguish past liability regimes.

Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that, under FEMA, attempt liability is not available where the transfer was prevented before any defined financial transaction occurred; thus, confiscation or penalty based solely on attempt was not justified.

Issue 3 - Sustainment of penalties of Rs. 25,00,000 each imposed under Section 13(2) for alleged contravention of Section 3(d)

Legal framework: Section 13(2) (penalties) penalizes contraventions of Chapter/sections such as Section 3(d), subject to making out of substantive contravention as required by the Act.

Precedent treatment: No specific precedents were invoked by the Tribunal to alter the ordinary principle that penalty must rest upon established contravention; the Tribunal relied on its primary finding that no Section 3(d) transaction had taken place for confiscation purposes.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the Department had imposed penalties despite simultaneously refusing confiscation on the ground that no financial transaction occurred. The appellants' counsel expressed a readiness to have the penalties adjusted against the withheld amount and sought disposal on that basis. Given the Department's failure to establish a completed contravention sufficient for confiscation, and having regard to the appellants' concession to adjustment, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the penalty orders on merits but directed adjustment of the penalties against the seized amount and refund of the balance.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Obiter/Practical disposition - The Tribunal's non-interference on the penalties was tied to the parties' concession and the practical direction for adjustment and refund; the Court did not undertake an independent detailed adjudication of the legal correctness of the penalty quantum beyond finding no reason to disturb the orders given the consensual adjustment. The more authoritative ratio remains the requirement of a completed financial transaction to sustain enforcement action under Section 3(d).

Conclusions: The Tribunal (i) did not disturb the penalty orders on the appeals of the noticees, given the appellants' concession and the practical direction to adjust the penalties against the seized amount, and (ii) directed the authority to set off Rs. 25,00,000 against the seized sum for each noticee and to refund the remaining balance forthwith. Appeals by the Department against non-confiscation were dismissed.

Cross-references and Practical Outcomes

1. Issues 1 and 2 are interlinked: the finding that no completed "financial transaction" occurred (Issue 1) follows the legal conclusion that mere attempt/preparation is not actionable under FEMA (Issue 2).

2. Issue 3's disposition is pragmatic and contingent on the Tribunal's conclusions on Issues 1-2; the direction to adjust penalty sums against the withheld amount flows from the Tribunal's refusal to allow confiscation and the parties' positions.

---